| Revision as of 06:19, 28 January 2007 editCindery (talk | contribs)3,807 edits →re:Dumb question: rvv← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:23, 28 January 2007 edit undoNarendrasword (talk | contribs)2 edits ←Replaced page with 'go hell you woar, dont ply with indiand or u will get it hard'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| go hell you woar, dont ply with indiand or u will get it hard | |||
| <!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Cindery/Archive--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code>{{helpme}}</code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ] | ] 21:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!--Template:Archivebox begins--> | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="315px" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! align="center" | ]<br />] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| # ] | |||
| # <!--]--> | |||
| # | |||
| |} | |||
| <!--Template:Archivebox ends--> | |||
| ==Mumblio Speaks! == | |||
| I've kept up with the abortion page, Cindery. If things were this rough on the boxing page, there would be blood in the streets! | |||
| I may be young in the ways of Wiki - before two days ago, the only sock puppets I'd heard of were in WHAT ABOUT BOB - but I am sadly experienced in the ways of the world ('for he who increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow.'). However, it looks like things are moving in a good direction. I think I'll go back to the page and do some proofing and a bit of copy-editing post-consensus. | |||
| ==Who is Girondin?== | |||
| Hmm, seems he has only made three edits, all to Barrington talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Girondin | |||
| ] 18:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's me. I had created the account a while back, for use editing articles which could identify me in real life (eg my high school, college, hometown, etc) but never used it. At the time I posted on ], I was unwittingly signed in as ] rather than ]. Apologies for any confusion, and I'm happy to switch the sig on edits in question (to link to ]) or to tag ] with a link to ]. ] 21:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It looks like you used your sock account solely for the purpose of wikistalking/harassment. | |||
| ] 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, anyone can review the contribution history you linked above and draw their own conclusions. My intent was to correct your mistaken impression that "Nearly Headless Nick" and "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" were two separate accounts, as it was clear that "Nearly Headless Nick" was just the sig used by Mimsy-Porpington, both being derived from the ] books. My intent was to point out the error in a neutral way. I probably should have just kept my mouth shut and let you persist in error, especially given that we haven't seen eye-to-eye in the past, but I can't rewind the clock now. The comment about was inappropriate and uncivil; all I can do about that at this point is apologize - and you have my apologies for that comment; it was out of line. I did review the ] policy prior to creating the account, back in November, and it seemed legit to create an account for use to edit articles that could identify one in real life, although I still haven't gotten around to this. The comments on ] were left with the ] account in error, as I explained above. As I said, I'm happy to clarify that they were my comments in whatever way seems reasonable. Unfortunately, I can't rewind the clock and leave them from ], but I'm happy to do whatever else seems appropriate to link those comments, or the ] account, to ]. Alternately, you're well within your rights to submit my actions for review by the community if you so desire, and I'll accept their judgement. ] 22:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| As you are aware, I have already expressed alarm that you wikistalked me to ] and ] following an argument at ], where you remained wholly fixated on me (70+ personally-directed argumentative posts only in response to me on the talkpage, zero research on the article, while I remained focused on improving the article--contributed 58 citations=half the research for the article...) "Didn't see eye to eye" is gross distortion--there are diffs to support accusations that you wikistalked and harassed me, and made personal attacks I did not report. Consequently, I completely avoid you. For you to then create a sock account and use it only to make inflammatory comments on the talkpage of an article where I returned as a regular editor and you have never before made a contribution appears to be very clear use of a sock to harass/wikistalk in the worst faith possible. What is creepy beyond-the-pale to me is that you were harassing/wikistalking someone who left articles in order to avoid you/was very actively avoiding you. | |||
| ] 23:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Cindery, there is a huge difference between using a sock to try to ''prevent'' conflict and using one to ''harass''. Calm down, step back and look at it objectively if you can. Don't throw gasoline on a fire - seek to de-escalate rather than escalate. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| By his own admission, he made a comment which was "inappropriate and incivil"--that is using a sock to harass, not to "prevent conflict." | |||
| ] 23:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :In regards to your constant accusations, I made it very clear awhile back that I was responding to a request to ClinMed for 3rd opinion, not "wikistalking" you, on Depo/EC - an attempt to de-escalate which you , calling it "further harassment" (while leaving your unfounded accusations behind). OK. I "wikistalked" you to ]??? Look at the edit history: I've made zero edits and there, which you actually - yet you now claim that interaction as evidence of "wikistalking", and claim ''I'm'' acting in bad faith. Our interactions at ] and ] are a matter of record which I won't belabor further, other than to say that your perception of our interaction does not match mine. About the ] account - as you can see from the logs, I created it quite some time ago. It was not created in order to harass you, or to participate in a YouTube discussion or ], about which I care very little. It was created for the reasons I stated above. About my incivil comment - it's there for all to see. I apologized, and I'm sincere that if I could withdraw that particular comment, I would. It was made in a moment of weakness; I'd just ask that it be viewed in the context of the whole of my participation in Misplaced Pages, which I don't believe has been characterized by incivility. I stand by the fact that my input on ] was intended to clear up a misunderstanding, and I think the record bears that out. But like I said, I have nothing to hide, and you're well within your rights to submit my actions for review by the community, whose verdict I'll accept. ] 23:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| As I said, the diffs exist to support accusations of wikistalking, harassment, and personal attacks by you towards me ''prior'' to your use of a sock account solely for the purpose of harassing/wikistalking me: I am making it clear that a long history preceded your use of a sock to wikistalk/harass. Also clarifying that I completetly avoid you and all articles you edit, whereas you have created a sock to harass/wikistalk me at an article you do not edit. | |||
| ] 00:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :A) the account was not created to harass you, b) the account was not used to harass you (see ] comment above), c) further discussion here seems fruitless, as you seem determined to amplify rather than de-escalate the issue at hand. If you truly believe that punitive action against me is warranted, then you're familiar enough with Misplaced Pages to know the avenues open for you to proceed. As soon as your blocks for incivility, personal attacks, disruptive editing, and ''abusive'' sockpuppetry expire, please go ahead - I'd welcome scrutiny from the community as opposed to further vague insults and accusations. ] 00:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'll begin compiling diffs/summaries for regular readers of this page, so your recent harassment-only sock account has context. | |||
| 1. On Nov 3, approximately 20 minutes after an argument with me at the Emergency Contraception talkpage, during which I pointed out they you were verging on personal attacks, and reminded you that "Wikiedia is not a battleground" and I was not your "opponent": http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Emergency_contraception/archive2#abortion_rates_as_measure_of_efficacy, you began editing Depo Provera, an article you had never edited before. You claim you noticed it on ClinMed--but the ClinMed notice was quite old (almost 24hrs previous) and you did not reply to the issues raised on ClinMed. What was *new* is that I had posted on Nov 2 to another editor at EC that Depo and Dalkon Shield were articles I cared a great deal about: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jfruh#PP--I believe that was the motivating factor. At Depo, you immediately breached civility and engaged in edit warring--in less than 2 hours, you were up to 2 reverts each on two different subjects. You asked for an opinion from another editor (whose stated opinion on the matter on the talkpage agreed with your own) about a content dispute, and mentioned that you believed you might be getting "more argumentative" than you should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Davidruben#Your_opinion The editor confirmed that you were more argumentative than you should be. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Depo_Provera/Archive_1#Breast_cancer_risk I do not think you were asking for his opinion on your behavior, however, but rather hoping he would side with you on in the content dispute (again, a matter in which his previously stated opinion agreed with yours). When he did not side with you, but criticized your behavior instead, you asked him again for his opinion about the content. He was silent. I wrote to him that I hoped he wouldn't think I would be personally offended if he agreed with you and disagreed with me, but that I would be taking a break from the article because I was concerned that you might have been wikistalking/importing your anger from one talkpage over to another, and I didn't want to feed disputes that were personally motivated/I thought other editors should debate the content disputes to avoid content-disputes-that-are-actually-personal-conflicts, and that maybe requesting more input via noticeboards was a good idea, if he was worried about giving his opinion during a POV imbalance in my absence. | |||
| You then accused me of personally attacking you by writing to him, and began long posts to my talkpage. I asked you to stop, and to disengage, and you refused. The other editor informed you that suspecting someone of wikistalking is not a personal attack. | |||
| It is certainly not unreasonable to suspect or accuse you of wikistalking for choosing to follow someone ''immediately'' from one article in which you are having a conflict, to another, which you have never edited before, where you edit war, are uncivil, etc--it ''looks'' like wikistalking and harassment. (An example of an unreasonable accusation of wikistalking/harassment, I think, is the accusation made against Malber, for participating ''once '' in an article which Nick also edits (commented on an Afd?): http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Malber#Before_this_becomes_a_serious_matter--but take note of the precedent for a threshold of suspicion. Once it is clear that you and so-and-so don't get along/are having a dispute, following them to any articles they edit and you never have appears suspicious. A good defense is not "I saw the article on a noticeboard"--a good defense is, I was extra civil and cautious, due to the previous/ongoing argument with <whomever>, because I wanted to improve the article in some way, and wanted it to be clear that that's all I was doing. By your own admission (and in the opinion of the person you consulted for outside advice) you arrived at Depo for the first time already angry: uncivil, edit warring etc. It gave me the creeps, and my response was to leave the article. | |||
| ] 01:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| to relevant discussion on ]. It seems to me that this should resolve the matter. If you think not, then you should probably bring it to ], too (don't try to edit starting from the permalink, though. If that discussion is still there, you can place your remarks in the discussion. If not, then, so people can tell what you are talking about, either find the appropriate discussion in the archives and reference it, or simply include the permalink in your remarks. - ] | ] 21:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Link to ANI report: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mastcell_wikistalking-] 22:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == BDJ == | |||
| Badlydrawnjeff is an inclusionist process wonk who dislikes me. He regularly reviews my contributions and attempts to make my life worse. Ignore him. ] - ] 05:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| =( ] 14:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == re:Dumb question == | |||
| :Perfectly valid question... Yes, a redirect automatically forwards someone to a different page. You can create a redirect with the code: <code><nowiki>#REDIRECT ]</nowiki></code> Yes, a merge can be done without a redirect, but that's fairly rare. (typically, if an article closes as "merge" the old page title gets redirected) A "Merge and delete" means that the person doesn't think the redirect would be useful to people searching for the article... but in this case it would be quite useful for someone searching for Jane Dark to be sent to the right article. | |||
| :Just to confuse the issue a little more, sometimes a debate can be closed as "redirect" witch means that there wasn't anything worth moving to the other title. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, the whole "not a vote" thing is kinda sticky. The idea is that the AFD process is to attempt to build consensus for a course of action. In actuality we use a concept called a "rough consensus" based on the strength of the arguments. If twelve people "vote" to keep an article and one person "votes" to delete the article then the twelve keeps are most likely to "win"... unless that one person's argument is strong enough to brush away all the other "vote"rs. (For example, if the article is a direct copyvio or it's a hoax). The admin is expected to weight the merits of both arguments with the weight of support for each side. 3/4ths of the AFDs are unanimous, so most of the time it's not a big deal. | |||
| :::The most typical term is "!vote" with the "!" before the "vote" part. In some programing languages the "!" means "not" so the "!vote" shorthand was born. Most people recognizes it's an "informal ballot" and not a real vote, but there isn't really a better word then "vote" to describe the action. So.. ummm I hope I wasn't too confuseing? ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 07:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you--that was really helpful.-] 08:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No problem. If you ever have any questions about prossess, etc, let me know. Oh,] might be a good example of the decision making process since the closing admin does a good job explaining. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ) | |||
| :AFDs usually go though smoothly. Most AFD aren't contentious... but some people take the whole process very personally. Understandably when its your hard work that might end up being deleted. Or if the subject of the article shows up and takes the entire debate to be a question of thier importance as a person/business/band/etc. | |||
| :Yeah, AFD is sometimes a little bit of a crap-shoot. 8 different people can look at the article and all miss one key peace of information that might have swayed thier opinion one way or another. The good news is that AFDs are never a permanent ban on that topic having an article and just to complicate things any AFD can be appealed though ]. | |||
| :My general impression of AFD is a positive one. Our "bar" for inclusion here at wikipedia is so so low. We require very little to justify an article on wikipedia. The idea of unlimited storage has let us widen our scope to almost anything. AFD is the attempt to judge an article against that really low bar. The difference between the "deletionists" and "inclusionists" is just how low that bar should be... It's not that the deletionists want to limit our scope to Britannica topics, it's just a matter of inches one way or another when our bar is miles lower then a print pedia. "Deletionist" vs "Inclusionist" is more often a false delema. It's realy a scale of interpriation with most people falling somewhere in the middle. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know what DRV is--I read Nick's RfC :-) I guess what you haven't answered is: why do some people "take the whole process personally." But perhaps it is an unanswerable mystery or rhetorical question. (Why AfD and not everything, though?)-] 07:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR at ] == | |||
| I just wanted to point out that you've reverted the article three times, if you revert again, you may be blocked per ]. --] 17:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| You have been blocked from editing for one week . -- ] 18:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I appeal that on the grounds that your stated reasons aren't accurate, I think. Can you explain in more detail? Perhaps it was confusing because immediately after Milo, Localzuk reverted the graffiti, J.Smith and David D. began to convert the ref format without consensus, and refused to observe the WP:CITE guideline. Thanks,-] 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::On the contrary, there was a general consensus to change the ref format. -- ] 18:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm the first major contributor, and in a dispute WP:CITE states that the format used should be that established by first major contributor (also, I clearly outlined the good reasons for using a full citations in a ref list/with embedded links for quotes rather than footnotes for whole article on the talkpage).-] 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with J.Smith. The WP:CITE guideline does not give you the ability to overrule the rest of the talk page. -- ] 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :WP:CITE = Guideline, WP:OWN = Policy. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor."--WP:CITE is clear on how to handle disputes regarding format. It does not state: "this is overruled by policy in 'x' circumstance." | |||
| J.Smith, as I have pointed out, you need a WP:OWN argument. Just because I have source knowledge and background knowledge of the subject and you do not does not automatically mean I have "owned" the article. I have edited the article with an eye on the POV issues (depicting Barrington accurately but not too negatively, and trying to include decades other than the 80s, although that is when it got the most press.) In addition, I have been happy to agree to delete things like the word "classic" from the graffiti section title, etc. You participated in an edit war and protracted battle to delete the You Tube link from the article during your You Tube deletion project, however...-] 18:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You misunderstand. Please read the policies. A policy is something that in normal circumstances should be followed. A guideline is one which advises as to good practice. ie. Policy trumps guideline. | |||
| :Now, onto the issue at hand. Please can you explain how having non-inline references helps to aid a reader in discovering the source of information? For an article to reach ] status it must contain inline references. This is a fairly good indicator that inlines are the norm and are expected across the site. | |||
| :I will warn you again - assume good faith. Your persistent comments about the YouTube discussion are childish and irrelevant. The editors involved were involved for their own reasons (looking back at it, most were worried about copyright issues and some were worried about reliability issues) so comments regarding their stance in that discussion just weaken any arguments you come up with and make people dismiss you as a troll quickly (rightly or wrongly, I have no opinion, this is just what will happen - I have seen it happen with dozens of editors who won't assume good faith).-]<sup>]</sup> 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *In additon, Steele, 1) you have blocked without warning 2) I did not violate 3RR 3) you haven't clarified what you mean by "misreprenting" or "lying" 4) WP:CITE is relevant (and no "own" argument has been offered).-] 18:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Also: I requested page protection, twice, in good faith, because there is not consensus at the article (and those opposed refused to continue discussion.)-] 18:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***Six people agreeing and one person resisting that agreement do not a lack of consensus make. Per our policy on ] '''It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Misplaced Pages's consensus practice.''' Hope that helps. ] <small>]</small> 18:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****The numbers aren't 6 to 1; it's unclear what you are referring to; and you have not answered my direct questions. I have just emailed you. -] 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (this was meant for Steel, not Steve--my mistake). | |||
| ==discussion with Steel== | |||
| Cindery, | |||
| #You continually reinserted the blog link which several people object to on ] grounds and, later on, continually converted the references back to the old style when several people tried to change them into inline citations. That is disruptive, hence the block. I have not mentioned the 3RR anywhere, but since you bring it up, by my count you made three clear reverts and a couple of semi-reverts. | |||
| #At the time of writing this, there have been 97 edits to the talk page today . Please stop claiming that people are refusing to discuss this with you, because that's simply false. | |||
| #Like with the 3RR, I have not mentioned ] anywhere either. Again, claims that we "need a WP:OWN argument" are false. We don't. As I said before, the first contributor thing in ] does not give you the ability to overrule an entire talk page worth of consensus. | |||
| #You have a nasty habit of saying things like "other editors are edit warring" and "other editors are not respecting consensus". The simple fact is that it's ''you'' that's edit warring and ''you'' that's not respecting consensus. I don't know whether this just hasn't occurred to you, or whether you deliberately say things like this to make others look bad, hence the "at best... at worst..." in the block summary. | |||
| #You said in your email that you gave good reasons to keep the old style of reference them. Perhaps you could repeat them here, because I can't find them. | |||
| #Please stop making a separation between "regular editors of the article" and "editors who were ... only involved in this article during a previous dispute about the You Tube link". | |||
| -- ] 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Re refs: the first mention is in a conversation between me and J. Smith (after he fact-tagged and templated almost every section in the article...): "I think it's more elegant and useful to leave the Green Book as a general ref, instead of citing it 30 times in the article.-Cindery 20:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"-] 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *And again today: 1) There hasn't been consensus for inline cites--I like the refs better as a list due to the to Green Book; many articles have lists of refs instead of innline cites. See every other USCA article, for example.-Cindery 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 2)"They don't all have to be cited inline (particularly if they would be cited a lot, or are not available online). Per policy the original editor to use ref format gets to choose--as I have cited as links not footnotes, that would be me."-Cindery 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 2) There are two objections 1) the format for inline cites of quotes will be links, not footnotes, per me. 3) not everything needs an inline cite, esp. as the Green Book would have to be cited so many times, is not paginated in its online form, and many of the sources are newspaper sources which aren't online, so inline cites for them wouldn't be to links."-Cindery-] 20:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC) And I quoted WP:CITE: "Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor." | |||
| *You have stated that you "agree" with J. Smith, who quoted OWN to my citation of cite (even though he acknowledged CITE on the talkpage.) Perhaps that was ambiguous, and you did not mean OWN--so, on what policy basis do you believe that cite is not relevant? (CITE, unlike many guidelines does have a clear stiplulation about how disputes are resolved--the format is that of the orignal major contributor).-] 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Re ref format and "an entire talkpage of consensus"--there was not consensus, there was some acknowledgement per CITE we should use the original method. Per WP:CON:"the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues" it is often difficult for all members , and "Misplaced Pages is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." So I'm not sure what you mean by "consensus" here.-] 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Re: "Several people object on RS grounds": according to J. smith: "Actually, we simply don't accept the source as reliable. It has been discussed in length. We looked at it under the suspicious circumstances is showed up in and judged it invalid. "---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC) "Suspicious circumstances" are not an element of RS, but of opinion, which was deemed "beside the point" at ANI yesterday (with a very uncivil, admitted un-AGF title): -] 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Re: Discussion v. number of talkpage posts--they don't correlate. Most of the posts from last night and today are arguments for and against continuing discussion, not discussion of the source on its merits, or RS. Note that I pointed out to you that Milo rejected discussion with doesn't "dignify a response": He also stated that "engaging in discussion to gain consensus" "takes the cake"...but that is precisely how consensus is supposed to be determined. This is from discussion yesterday (note that he did not reply with a summary of pro/con): | |||
| I have repeatedly asked who besides Cindery and Astanhope thinks the list should remain, and have received no response. I think consensus is clear, any idea when the article may be unlocked? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| No, there is not consensus, and the three regular editors of the article agree that the graffiti list should stay. Perhaps it would help if you summarized what you believe are the pro/con arguments (or at least the con argument(s). There hasn't even been consensus from the "objectors," but moves to objection under different grounds: "well if it's a reliable source, then the author is not the author," "if the author is the author, then the list is trivial" etc, which evinces an overall IDONTLIKEIT objection, which is not a valid objection.-Cindery 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The post in question, in context: . --] 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Re "nasty habit"--can you please point out to me where in the graffiti discussions I had a "nasty habit" of accusing anyone of edit warring or not respecting consensus? (I have pointed out that there was disagreement/two groups and hence not consensus). And this was my response when there was esclation from fact-tagging the section to blanking it, before I made an ANI complaint and the page was protected: "Hmm. I don't understand why a section was blanked without discussion? As the same person affixed fact tags to each item in the section, agreed with someone else to wait for sources, agreed that one of the items was not disputed at all, and there is both a new reference and an ongoing discussion about it, it doesn't seem helpful or constructive to me.-Cindery 08:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)-] 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Can you specifically state what you mean by "lying"?-] 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==unblock request== | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=no warning, no policy basis, admin doesn't reply to email|decline=Block is justifiable -- ] ] 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
Revision as of 06:23, 28 January 2007
go hell you woar, dont ply with indiand or u will get it hard